Tweet
Slightly off-topic, post. What does anyone think of Carra and/or Neville on Sky?
Personally, I've gone completely off Carra the longer he's been on Sky. Initially I could stomach him a little bit as he's an ex-red and gave our club some great service to be fair (we can't forget Istanbul among others). As things have gone on, I just can't bear to listen to him really. I just find most of what he says to be blindingly obvious. He doesn't offer much insight given he's played at the highest level. I think he likes to create the impression that he thinks deeply about the game and sometimes offers opinions which might be against the grain but to me that's just posturing. Maybe I'm being harsh. I'd be curious to know others' opinions. Apologies if there's a previous thread.
In tandem, what do people think of Neville? I found him more interesting to begin with. I find as the years go on he just doesn't seem to know much more than the average fan. His predictions for title-winners are usually laughably inaccurate and biased. Is it the quality of pundits generally? Is it the assumption that top players will make good pundits?
Souness was one of the better pundits in recent times imho. I think that was because of years of experience at different levels in the game including failing horribly as a manager, which naturally makes him a more interesting character than the other two. I also think players in the past could talk about things other than football which makes them much interesting as human beings.
It would be refreshing to see some pundits who actually have the capacity for deeper thought and who can bring insight rather than just state the obvious.
Personally, I've gone completely off Carra the longer he's been on Sky. Initially I could stomach him a little bit as he's an ex-red and gave our club some great service to be fair (we can't forget Istanbul among others). As things have gone on, I just can't bear to listen to him really. I just find most of what he says to be blindingly obvious. He doesn't offer much insight given he's played at the highest level. I think he likes to create the impression that he thinks deeply about the game and sometimes offers opinions which might be against the grain but to me that's just posturing. Maybe I'm being harsh. I'd be curious to know others' opinions. Apologies if there's a previous thread.
In tandem, what do people think of Neville? I found him more interesting to begin with. I find as the years go on he just doesn't seem to know much more than the average fan. His predictions for title-winners are usually laughably inaccurate and biased. Is it the quality of pundits generally? Is it the assumption that top players will make good pundits?
Souness was one of the better pundits in recent times imho. I think that was because of years of experience at different levels in the game including failing horribly as a manager, which naturally makes him a more interesting character than the other two. I also think players in the past could talk about things other than football which makes them much interesting as human beings.
It would be refreshing to see some pundits who actually have the capacity for deeper thought and who can bring insight rather than just state the obvious.
Comment